Imagine this: An organization is being ruled by one man who claims he is the savior of mankind and the child of God. This man goes around the country recruiting people into his organization, speaking out against the government, and threatening the stability of the nation. Eventually, he gains so much influence that the government, believing the man to be dangerous, tries to shut down the organization by eliminating him. Would this organization be a cult or a religion? Most would say the organization perfectly resembles a cult; however, the story above is a summary of the founding of Christianity, the most practiced religion on Earth.

Religions and cults are often seen as distinct entities. However, the line between a small religion and a large cult can be blurry. This essay will delve into the characteristics that differentiate religions from cults, including social acceptability, target of worship, worship practices, and safety and security. This paper aims to shed light on the important distinctions between these two categories and highlight the implications of these differences. This essay explores the differences between religions and cults through their social acceptability, target of worship, and safety. Whereas religion is more socially acceptable, specifically targeted, and safe, cults pose greater threats to both believers and non-believers. A critical examination of this difference is crucial in the identification of potentially dangerous cult behavior. Being able to recognize these dangers facilitates a better, more well-informed understanding of religious and spiritual movements.

Defining Religions and Cults

Before delving deeper into the comparison, it is crucial to establish clear definitions for religion and cult. While these definitions overlap in certain aspects, they diverge significantly. Frederick Ferré's essay “The Definition of Religion” offers valuable insights, highlighting three defining characteristics of religion: “the response of the whole self… a pattern of rituals … [and] a community or communities of faith and worshipers who gather together for common religious

purposes (11-21).” Ultimately, these insights contribute to a more nuanced and comprehensive definition of religion. This definition explains that religion is not built only through the scriptures and writing of specific texts, but that most characteristics of a religion are built through its inner hierarchy structure and community.

The distinction between a cult and a religion lies in subtle yet significant details. In "Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular-Negative," Richardson explains that "a sociological-technical definition of a cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (337).” In other words, a cult is a controlling, fervent and socially dangerous group that has been rejected by mainstream society. Richardson also confirms that “in popular usage, the word 'cult' has taken on a pejorative connotation [and] is often associated with extremist or fringe religious groups that are considered deviant or dangerous by mainstream society (340).” The identity of a cult incites fear, as it brings harm. This further supports the argument that cults may bring unpleasant consequences to its practitioners, and one should do well to spot signs that indicate an organization might be a cult, in order avoid it.

Social Acceptability/Social Image

One of the primary distinctions between religions and cults is their level of social acceptability. Regardless of their size, religions tend to be more widely accepted by society as legitimate belief systems, whereas for cults, "there has been a tendency to dismiss them as ephemeral, silly, and bad imitations of 'real' religions." - This quote illustrates the general societal dismissal and devaluation of cults compared to established religions, indicating a lack of acceptance or legitimacy attributed to them by society (Stark 359). On the other hand, cults often face societal disapproval and are not recognized as genuine religions. This social stigma stems from the perception that cults are characterized by manipulation, abuse, and the isolation of their members. In their essay "Cults of America: A Reconnaissance of Space and Time”, Stark et al. write that: "While it is obvious that even the harshest measures of repression cannot stamp out all religions deviance, it is equally obvious that repression can greatly minimize such activity (351)." This quote indirectly acknowledges that the practices of cults (referred to here as "religions deviance") have been subject to harsh measures of repression, suggesting a societal attempt to minimize the influence of these groups. By stating that cults challenge the boundaries of societal acceptance, Stark et al. suggest that cults often surpass these boundaries. Consequentially, the public is less willing to accept groups that do not work within the common boundaries of society.

To illustrate the consequences of outlier status, let us consider the example of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). Although the practices of the FSM have not led to dangerous actions that disrupt society, the FSM is still often labeled as a cult. This deity is not widely accepted by mainstream society, reinforcing the perception that cults deviate from accepted religious worships (Obadia 240). While cults are not widely accepted by the public, religions often are. Take the example of Christianity. According to statistics provided by sociologist Travis Mitchell, about 65% of the US population is Christian, a clear indication that religion is accepted by mainstream society (Mitchell). The relationship between society and distinction of a religious organization comes down to the acceptance rate. Even if there are objectively harmful actions within an organization, if this organization were to be accepted by most of the world, then it would still be classified as a legitimate religion, assuming that it is quantitatively possible to poll the acceptance rate throughout the world. With this being such a difficult task, methods in classifying religions and cults usually resort to classification by comparing them to existing organizations.

The Target of Worship

Another crucial difference between religions and cults lies in their objects of worship. Religions typically focus on the worship of deities, while cults revolve around the veneration of specific individuals. For example, the ultimate focus of worship in Islam is Allah, the Creator and One and Only. To understand Allah, the Quran states, “Allāh – there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Self-Sustaining (Quran 2:225).” Here the Quran paints the picture for us of an ultimate world creator that holds immense power. Through the Quran and other holy texts, followers of Islam can derive guiding morals and standards of behavior. By comparison, followers of the sex cult NXIVM were so devoted to their leader, Keith Raniere, that they were fire-branded with his initials and made into sex slaves (Raine 50). While religions like Islam exalt a holy text or being, NXIVM made Raniere, a specific person, the focus of these worship practices.

It is important to emphasize that this distinction in the focus of worship can sometimes become blurry, as demonstrated by the example of Christianity in the introduction. Especially in the early phases of a small religion, there may be an overlap between the worship of a person as a representative of a deity and the deity itself. Alternatively, when groups start as part of an established religion, they might break off to form a cult centered around the worship of a particular person within the initial religion. The New Religion Movement (NRM) serves as an illustration of this transition, where a splinter group emerged within an established religion, devoting their worship to a specific person rather than traditional deities (Robbins 105). Like the NRM, the Branch Davidians were a splinter group from the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Kerstetter 455-470). Under the leadership of David Koresh, the group became highly isolated and had a distinct apocalyptic belief system. In 1993, a 51-day standoff with law enforcement at their compound in Waco, Texas, ended in a tragic fire that claimed the lives of many members (Newport 64-90). In both cults mentioned above, we can see how the shift from a religion to a cult occurs when the target of worship changes from a deity to a specific person.

Worship Practices

Religious practices are often characterized by flexibility, allowing believers to worship in various locations and under diverse circumstances. In contrast, cult practices tend to be more confined, dictated by specific circumstances that must be met to comply with the cult's expectations.

For instance, Daoism, a small religion, encompasses a wide range of practices that can be performed in multiple places and settings. According to sociologist Hsieh Shu-wei, Daoist practices usually include meditation, qigong, tai chi, appreciation of nature, mindful breathing, self-reflection, and the study of the Tao Te Ching, all of which can be practiced in a variety of settings and groups (260). On the other hand, Aum Shinrikyo, a large cult, requires members to adhere strictly to the instructions and guidelines set forth by the cult's leaders, such as Doomsday prophecies and chemical weapons production. The worships of Aum Shinrikyo are all very specific regarding location, such as a professional laboratory for manufacturing toxic gasses and the designated secret house for prophecies, such that followers cannot perform these actions from anywhere (Gunaratna 3). Cults like Aum Shinrikyo restrict their worshipping as one of their methods of maintaining control over their members, an aim that religions do not pursue.

Safety & Security

One of the most significant differences between religions and cults lies in the level of safety and security they each provide to their followers. Mainstream religions typically prioritize the well-being and safety of their believers. In contrast, cult practices can often become dangerous, harmful, and even fatal. Religion cares for the well-being of its followers through moral guidance, social support, and a sense of belonging. Religious organizations address emotional and spiritual needs, provide guidance for various aspects of life, and promote physical health and well-being. Additionally, religion encourages acts of charity, service, and social justice. The extent of this care varies across different traditions and individual beliefs (Schieman 300).

In contrast, cults may not prioritize the well-being of their followers and often bring about danger instead. The Aum Shinrikyo cult serves as a striking example of the dangers associated with cult practices. This doomsday cult blends elements of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism with the conviction that nonbelievers can only receive salvation through death. As a result, cult members have engaged in acts of violence and murder, causing harm to others under the pretext of saving them. In "Aum Shinrikyo’s Rise, Fall and Revival", Rohan Gunaratna highlights how Aum Shinriko was not just incidental but fundamental to the functioning of the cult.

Gunaratna describes Aum Shinrikyo as a closed society “where people were isolated from the outside world, where the leader's decisions were final and where doubters or dissenters were punished (90).” The cult suppresses dissent to foster an environment of fear and isolation. Those who question or express doubts are subjected to punishment and ostracization, perpetuating their dependence on the cult and reinforcing its dangerous practices.

Gunaratna's analysis also reveals that dangerous practices are deeply ingrained in Aum Shinrikyo's ideology and operations. The cult embraces violence, produces, and employs chemical weapons, manipulates followers' minds, and suppresses dissent as fundamental components (Gunaratna 95). Similarly, the Children of God (COG) cult, which rose to prominence in the US in the 1960s, combined promiscuous sex with Jesus’ worship, believing childbirth granted salvation. When the leader later advocated killing cult-born children, government intervention was necessary to shut down the cult. Understanding the inherent dangers of such cults is crucial for recognizing and addressing the threats they pose to individuals and society.

In addition to practices that endanger the outside world, cults also design structures that breach the social security within the organization itself. Stephen A. Kent's article "Misattribution and Social Control in the Children of God" presents valuable insights into how this deterioration worked within the Children of God. Kent explains, "The Children of God controlled personal relationships within its ranks, breaking up family units and assigning new 'spiritual' parents to its members (5).” By reassigning parental figures and dictating familial dynamics, the cult undermined social security and fostered dependency on the organization. Kent highlights, "the COG employed mind-altering techniques, such as 'flirty fishing,' to control and manipulate its members (Kent 73).” Flirty fishing is when female members of Children of God, or "fisherwomen," would apply their sex appeal to "fish", men from outside the cult, luring them to join the cult and using this relationship and emotion to control these new members. This practice allowed for dangerous diseases to spread within the cult. This practice was just one of the many ways that the cult utilized psychological manipulation tactics so members would follow the leader blindly, therefore, reinforcing the insanity of the cult.

Within cults like Aum Shinrikyo and Children of God, the manipulation of personal relationships, coercion, isolation, psychological manipulation, and infringement on personal autonomy all contribute to an environment of control and dependency. Religions prioritize the well-being of their believers and avoid harmful practices, while cults might engage in such dangers. Recognizing the differences and dangers of cults is vital.

Conclusion

While religions are generally more socially acceptable and worship deities, cults tend to follow individuals and engage in more restrictive practices. The worship practices of religions are more flexible, while cults often impose stringent guidelines. Additionally, the safety and security provided by religions contrast sharply with the dangerous and harmful practices associated with many cults, although not all of them.

Understanding these distinctions is crucial in shaping our perception of various belief systems and helping us identify potential dangers associated with cult-like behavior. Through a thorough analysis of the traits and instances elucidated, we empower ourselves to traverse the intricate terrain of religious and spiritual movements, fostering inclusivity, security, and discernment in our choices.

Works Cited

Ferré, Frederick. “The Definition of Religion.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 38, no. 1, 1970, pp.3–16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1461697.

Gunaratna, Rohan. “Aum Shinrikyo’s Rise, Fall and Revival.” Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses 10, no. 8, 2018, pp.1–6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26481827.

Hsieh, Shu-wei. “Daoism and Nationalism in Modern and Contemporary China.” In Religion and Nationalism in Chinese Societies, edited by Cheng-tian Kuo, pp.253–78. Amsterdam University Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1zkjzkd.13.

Kent, Stephen A., and Miriam Williams. “Heaven’s Harlots: My Fifteen Years as a Sacred Prostitute in the Children of God Cult.” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 3, no. 1, 1999, 163–67. https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.1999.3.1.163.

Kerstetter, Todd. “‘That’s Just the American Way’: The Branch Davidian Tragedy and Western Religious History.” Western Historical Quarterly 35, no. 4, 2004, pp.453–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/25443054.

Mitchell, Travis. “About Three-in-Ten U.S. Adults Are Now Religiously Unaffiliated | Pew Research Center.” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. July 6 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/12/14/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-are-now religiously-unaffiliated/.

Newport, Kenneth G. C. “‘A Baptism by Fire’: The Branch Davidians and Apocalyptic Self Destruction.” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 13, no. 2, 2009, pp.61–94. https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2009.13.2.61.

Obadia, Lionel. "When Virtuality Shapes Social Reality. Fake Cults and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." Online-Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet 8, 2015. https://doi.org/10.11588/rel.2015.0.20327.

Raine, Susan. “Narcissistic Sexual Predation: Keith Raniere’s Grooming Strategies in NXIVM.” International Journal of Coercion, abuse and manipulation 1, no. 2, 2021, pp.41-59. https://roam.macewan.ca:8443/server/api/core/bitstreams/7ce541c8-12fa-4fdc-ab0f 093a7fe8d2a4/content.

Richardson, James T. “Definitions of Cult: From Sociological-Technical to Popular-Negative.” Review of Religious Research 34, no. 4 (1993): 348–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/3511972.

Robbins, Thomas. “Perspective: New Religions and Alternative Religions.” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 8, no. 3, 2005, pp,104–11. https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2005.8.3.104.

Stark, Rodney, William Sims Bainbridge, and Daniel P. Doyle. “Cults of America: A Reconnaissance in Space and Time.” Sociological Analysis 40, no. 4, 1979, pp.347–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/3709963.

Schieman, Scott, Alex Bierman, Laura Upenieks, and Christopher G. Ellison. “Love Thy Self?  How Belief in a Supportive God Shapes Self-Esteem.” Review of Religious Research 59, no. 3, 2017, pp.293–318. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26378526.